Laramore v. Jacobsen

E.D. Missouri

Laramore v. Jacobsen

DecidedApril 20, 2020

Docket4:17-cv-02283

StatusUnknown

This text of Laramore v. Jacobsen (Laramore v. Jacobsen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Laramore v. Jacobsen, (E.D. Mo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

DENNIS LARAMORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:17-cv-02283-SEP ) ZACH JACOBSEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. [83]. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “A motion to strike is properly directed only to material contained in pleadings.” Khamis v. Bd. of Regents, Se. Mo. State Univ., No. 1:09-CV-145-RWS, 2010 WL 1936228, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 13, 2013) (quoting Mecklenburg Farm, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-1719-CAS, 2008 WL 2518561, at *1 (E.D. Mo. June 19, 2008)). Rule 7(a) defines “pleadings” as a complaint, an answer to a complaint, an answer to a counterclaim, an answer to a crossclaim, a third-party complaint, and if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The document that Plaintiff seeks to strike is not a pleading, and courts in this district have generally not permitted parties to attack such non-pleadings through motions to strike. See, e.g., Shea v. Peoples Nat. Bank, No. 4:11-CV-1415-CAS, 2013 WL 74374, at *1 and *2, (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2013) (citing cases); Khamis, 2010 WL 1936228, at *1 (the document attached to the memorandum in opposition “is not a pleading and cannot be attacked with a motion to strike’); see also Milk Drivers Local Union No. 387 v. Roberts Dairy, 219 F.R.D. 151, 152 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (“Pleadings include complaints, answers, replies to counterclaims, answer to cross-claims, third-party complaints, and third-party answers. Therefore, a motion to strike a motion for summary judgment is inappropriate and should be denied.”’) (internal citations omitted; collecting cases). Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants’ reply brief, as that document is not a pleading. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’ s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. [83]) is DENIED.

Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

bok Efe SARAHE.PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

DENNIS LARAMORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:17-cv-02283-SEP ) ZACH JACOBSEN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. [83]. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “A motion to strike is properly directed only to material contained in pleadings.” Khamis v. Bd. of Regents, Se. Mo. State Univ., No. 1:09-CV-145-RWS, 2010 WL 1936228, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 13, 2013) (quoting Mecklenburg Farm, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-1719-CAS, 2008 WL 2518561, at *1 (E.D. Mo. June 19, 2008)). Rule 7(a) defines “pleadings” as a complaint, an answer to a complaint, an answer to a counterclaim, an answer to a crossclaim, a third-party complaint, and if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The document that Plaintiff seeks to strike is not a pleading, and courts in this district have generally not permitted parties to attack such non-pleadings through motions to strike. See, e.g., Shea v. Peoples Nat. Bank, No. 4:11-CV-1415-CAS, 2013 WL 74374, at *1 and *2, (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2013) (citing cases); Khamis, 2010 WL 1936228, at *1 (the document attached to the memorandum in opposition “is not a pleading and cannot be attacked with a motion to strike’); see also Milk Drivers Local Union No. 387 v. Roberts Dairy, 219 F.R.D. 151, 152 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (“Pleadings include complaints, answers, replies to counterclaims, answer to cross-claims, third-party complaints, and third-party answers. Therefore, a motion to strike a motion for summary judgment is inappropriate and should be denied.”’) (internal citations omitted; collecting cases). Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants’ reply brief, as that document is not a pleading. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’ s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. [83]) is DENIED.

Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

bok Efe SARAHE.PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Laramore v. Jacobsen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laramore-v-jacobsen-moed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack